Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Gabu]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

[Gabu]

25% of Americans say he will.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061231/D8MBQIFO0.html

well, isn't it obvious that the Democrats taking back congress is a sure sign?

I always thought the anti-Christ would be male, though.

[Gabu]

I can't vote either way. The only reason why this is amusing is because those of us who strongly believe in the second coming of Christ believe that Jesus will come in the hour we least expect.

The hour Naso loses his virginity?

I hope so, because that means the End Times don't exist.

[Gabu]

No proof.

Of course, those who assert that the Biblical account is 100% accurate have roughly equal proof.

The only people who are not required to give any are the smart ones who simply assert that we don't know.

[Gabu]

The book of Acts, believed to have been written by Luke, describes: 54 various cities… 9 various islands in the Mediterranean Sea…32 various countries…and 95 various people including 62 who are not mentioned by any other New Testament book and 27 who are unbelievers including civil and military leaders.

No discrepancies between Acts and the historical record have been found.  Such accuracy of the 1st Century world could have only come from a 1st Century eyewitness.

[snip]

And... that proves that Jesus died and was resurrected how?  I don't know why I would dispute the fact that there was a guy named Luke who wrote some stuff in the first century.

The fact that Luke was good at describing stuff does not exactly prove that Jesus was the Son of God who came back to life three days after being crucified, etc.

[Gabu]

But there lies the trap…

Since the book of Acts could only have been written in the 1st Century by an eyewitness of those events, for what other reason would they have had opportunity to experience so many different places and meet with so many civil/military leaders…if not for preaching the Gospel?

And if they did indeed preach the Gospel to all these places and people during the middle of the 1st Century, for what reason would they have conspired to make up the story of Jesus’ resurrection?

I don't know, but there are an awful lot of possibilities given the fact that all of that was 2000 years ago, and I don't exactly think that "Jesus was the Son of God and everything they said was 100% true" is the likeliest.  It's entirely possible that they all saw something, but were mistaken about what they saw, or perhaps only one person saw something and the others didn't want to admit that they hadn't seen it, or whatever.

It's entirely possible that all of them did indeed earnestly believe in everything, but even if they did, that doesn't mean that everything actually was as it was written.

[Gabu]

I also believe (curse that word, I can't spell it!) that the anti-Christ is alive and among us today. He is not an American or even a citizen of the Americas, but he is here.

PBrunsel, you seem to be confused; Hillary Clinton lives in New York.

[Gabu]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

That's just a silly question.  Do you even remember the Spanish Inquisition?  Those holier than thou saints were far less wicked than those crazy buddhists over in Asia.  Damn heathens.

How many people were involved in the Spanish Inquisiton? Thousands at best. How many budhists live in idolatry? Hundreds of millions.
Plus, there isn't any evidence that, even if we take only into account the duties toward man and leave out the duties towards God, the average Budhist is more or less moral than the average Christian.

If you define "wickedness" to mean "things that go against Christian teachings", then yeah, obviously one's wickedness is inversely proportional to how Christian that person is, purely by definition.

I don't think that definition would exactly be universally accepted as the proper definition of the word, however.

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.  L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

[Gabu]

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

I don't know why you two are trying to convince me that they did not purposefully lie, because I have never asserted that they did.

[Gabu]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

[Gabu]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

That wasn't my point.  The fact that they went through a lot of crap for their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are more true.  It certainly makes it awfully likely that they felt that they were true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually true.

Do I know what they saw?  No.  Do I know why they were convinced of what they believed?  No.

None of this proves that what they believed was in fact the truth, however.  All you're proving is that they were really, really convinced of something.

[Gabu]

However, if the statement is categorical, e.g. "We can't know", then proof is required of just why can't "we" know.

The burden of proof is on the person who says God exists.  RRB doesn't have to provide proof that God doesn't exist anymore than he has to provide proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

Not really.  That would only be true if God not existing was by far the accepted "default" assertion that was supported by all the facts accumulated thus far.  The burden of proof is on whoever makes a statement that is not patently obvious or part of generally accepted truths.  I don't consider it obvious or self-evident that God does not exist.

[Gabu]

But if I made a statement like "we cannot know whether or not the tooth fairy exists", no one would say well that's not self-evident, and here's a holy book that disagrees.  The only reason anyone treats the question of God any differently is because so many people believe in it.

And because there's evidence to at least make it a real possibility.  The fact that the universe exists at all indicates that there is a distinct possibility that it was created, and if the universe was created by some entity out there, then that entity would basically by definition fulfill the required prerequisites to claim deity status.

Conversely, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that a tooth fairy exists, and to say that there is no tooth fairy largely is in accordance with conventional wisdom, so that statement does indeed require no proof due to the likelihood of its being true.

Now, if you want to argue that there's no reason at all to believe that this deity is exactly as God appears in the Bible, you'll get no argument from me there.

[Gabu]

The question of whether any sort of supernatural power(s) exist is essentially meaningless, because if they do exist, we have no idea of knowing what their qualities are and why they created us.

I don't see why that makes the question meaningless.  It only means that you're not going to get very far if further questions are asked.

What we can discern is that if there is a deity, they a.) don't care about human affairs very much, as demonstrated by numerous factors (the incredible detail put into the millions of species that inhabit the earth as contrasted to the short timespan of human existence, the sheer size of the universe and the relative insignificance of the earth and even our solar system, and the existence of immense suffering and evil within the world), and thus b.) are not deserving of our worship, love, devotion, or admiration.

Or they just, really, really value free will.  Or any number of other possible explanations.  Don't these statements kind of run contrary to your assertion above that humans have no idea what the creator's qualities are, if such a thing exists?

There is no difference in how an atheist, agnostic, and deist operate on a day-to-day basis.  The existence of a deity is a question of science, not of any personal importance, once religious worship has been removed from the equation.  It essentially comes down to a question of probability.  I agree that there is no reason to believe that, if there is a God, it is anything like the God of the Bible, which is largely created in man's image with unlimited supernatural powers thrown in for literary purposes.  I would go further and argue that the definition of God as accepted by mainstream Christianity is a paradox whose existence is entirely impossible.

I don't argue with any portion of this paragraph.

[Gabu]

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

[Gabu]

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

I always thought there was something in there about loving your neighbor as yourself and about generosity and not blindly seeking revenge and all that, but I guess not, since I tend to never hear a word about that.

That's a very thoughtful question.

Here's why, in my opinion. 

I don't believe you can accept the worship of other people, as Jesus did, and not lead them astray.  Leading people astray is cruel.  Now, if Jesus came along -- as John the Baptist and many of the prophets did -- and said, "I am not God but I have a message for you" -- then well and good. He could tell people to live their lives in this or that way...encourage them to do good...and remind them to pray, read the scriptures and help the poor.

But he, like Reverend Moon, Jim Jones, Father Divine and a host of others throughout history claimed to be God in the flesh.  And he demanded and accepted worship.  Jim Jones did so many wonderful things in his ministry.  But he also claimed to be God...and wound up leading his followers to their doom.  The same could be said of Jesus.  Nearly all his earliest followers, for at least three hundred years, were put to death or forced to live under the most brutal persecution.  All because he said, "I AM that I AM".  (In saying this, he was effectively say -- to the Jewish mind, in particular -- I am the I AM who gave Moses the law.   So, you shall have no other Gods but me.  A carpenter?  From Nazareth?

Too many people died or suffered because he claimed divinity.

Someone cannot do such a thing and not be cruel...or crazy. 

Or, perhaps it's worth considering, he actually WAS God.

It's worth considering, yes, but I still don't really see how that proves that he was.  All that it says to me is that he was really, really convinced that he was the Son of God and so were other people.  I certainly think it's possible that he was.  I just don't see why the above is reason to state concretely that he definitely was, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

[Gabu]

I don't think free will explains any of my concerns adequately; in regards to the existence of evil and suffering in the world, some of it is out of our control.  A person who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion didn't use his free will to make any poor choices.  Maybe this just means that God values free will so much that our decisions (about who to have sex with and what protection to use) can just kill other people.  To me, it simply shows a lack of care on God's part.  If someone who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion is meant to be a sign to tell us to stop having unprotected sex, what value does it do to the person who got AIDS?  Not that, if this were the purpose of AIDS from blood transfusions, it has been very effective in stopping unprotected sex, given the way the AIDS rate has been soaring.  The idea that God could create a child simply so that it could be born with AIDS strikes me as morally repugnant.  The child (or the blood transfusion victim, both work) had no free will in the matter.

It depends on how you define "out of our control".  If someone gets AIDS from a blood transfusion, you are correct to state that that was totally out of control of the person receiving the transfusion.  But it was probably not out of control of the person who initially gave the blood.  To insert a hand in things to prevent the person who gave the blood from doing things would certainly violate free will.

As to the existence of disease and such at all, it's largely a fact that one's happiness is not based not on the circumstances that one finds oneself in, but on one's perception of these circumstances.  Two people could be in exactly the same circumstances and one could be happy while the other was quite unhappy.  It's kind of a morbid thought, but would it really be possible for anyone to be happy at all if there was no suffering or heartache in life?  How would we know to be happy if we've never seen or experienced the alternative?

I make all of these statements on the hypothetical that God does indeed exist.  While it would be impossible to discern his purpose in creating the universe, I think it is incredibly unlikely that, if he exists, he cares about human affairs, based on the examples I have given.  Basically all of this is to say that if God exists, this raises far too many questions for us to even begin to consider the scientific ramifications of his existence.  But, based on pure speculation, it seems very unlikely that God cares about humans on anything more than a superficial level.  This video, IMO, displays why the idea that humans are the purpose of the universe's existence is so unlikely.  I realize that we can't ever conclusively rule out God's existence.  However, atheism is not only the belief that God doesn't exist (although it can be), but it is also better defined as the conscious absence of belief in any supernatural powers.  While the concept of deism is palatable to me, I see no reason to believe there is any deity that created the universe unless scientific evidence points towards it.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  You've admitted that it's possible for there to have been a creator, but now you're saying that you see no reason at all to believe that some sort of deity created the universe.

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

[Gabu]

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

*bets on appeal to multiverses*

However many there are, the question is the same.

[Gabu]

You won't find jmfcst and I in agreement very often.  But on this, we do agree.  At least to the degree that no human can every attain or perform or otherwise reach the perfect goodness of God.

Which is why, from a Christian worldview, God came to bear our imperfection in Jesus...and bridge the gap between broken humanity and perfect divinity.

Since we're well on our way towards this topic now, anyways, this is something that has always bugged me: what difference exactly is it supposed to make to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and all that?  I've seen good and bad people who were allegedly "saved" and I've seen good and bad people who were not.  As far as I can tell, whether or not one believes (or says he believes) doesn't exactly have much of a bearing on how one acts.

Probably one of the most distasteful parts of Christianity for me is the part that you hear over and over from people trying to convert others, which is that you get eternally tortured in hell if you don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.

[Gabu]

[long post]

I appreciate your taking the time to write such a detailed response, but it unfortunately didn't really answer my question.  I suppose my question basically is this: why does God reward people with eternal bliss for last-minute faith after a life of sin, yet punish people with eternal torment for a life of service that lacked faith?

Or whether or not this is the case, I suppose.  It's all I ever hear from people attempting to save my soul from my clearly debaucherous, sinful life.

I just don't see why faith in Jesus' divinity is necessary for anything.  One can easily appreciate his message without believing that he was the Son of God.

[Gabu]

To your specific question:  I have real difficulty believing God does punish good people with eternal torment, simply because they fail to go forward at some tent revival or fill out a card at a church service. God looks on the heart of each man or woman.  I do believe God looks to see Jesus  and his vision imprinted there.  But suppose the person lives as though that imprint is there (Gandhi is a fine example) yet never confesses faith in Jesus?  Perhaps he didn't understand the message.  Perhaps he never heard the message.  Perhaps the message was so bolloxed by the messenger (you know -- hypocrites, charlatans and spiritual headhunters), that the person just couldn't accept it.  I believe God, in His/Her mercy, takes all that into account.

Thank you for another detailed response.

I'm curious why you say, though, that you don't believe that someone would not be given eternal punishment for not believing in Jesus.  I suppose that one section in particular that I'm looking at is Mark 16:15-16, which reads as follows:

"[Jesus] said unto [his desciples], Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This is quoted over and over by people who say that it doesn't matter what you do if you don't believe.

Although in reading other verses that I looked up, I do sort of find it confusing, as in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:31-46, in which it sounds as if people who do good things will be rewarded while people who do bad things are the ones who will get eternal punishment.

If God intended for there to be one clear message, he didn't do a very good job...

[Gabu]

What is so amazing is not that God doesn't save everyone, but that He saves anyone at all.

Yeah, it's sure amazing that God would create something and then not subject it to eternal pain and suffering.  Similarly, I think it's so amazing and commendable when a mother has a baby and then doesn't torture her baby shortly thereafter, since we would obviously expect such a thing to occur and consider it right and just.  Such commendable love and affection.

[Gabu]

What is so amazing is not that God doesn't save everyone, but that He saves anyone at all.

Yeah, it's sure amazing that God would create something and then not subject it to eternal pain and suffering.  Similarly, I think it's so amazing and commendable when a mother has a baby and then doesn't torture her baby shortly thereafter, since we would obviously expect such a thing to occur and consider it right and just.  Such commendable love and affection.

God's perfect justice necessitates punishment, Gabu.

Okay, here's how things go in my view.

There are generally three things asserted of God:

1. God is all-knowing.
2. God is all-loving.
3. God is all-powerful.

Christianity (among other religions) then asserts a few other things:

4. God created humans and defined their characteristics.
5. Humans who fail to satisfy a set of salvation requirements in life go to hell when they die where they are subjected to eternal suffering and torment.

Assuming that only one religion can be the correct religion, and given that for any given religion, the majority of humans do not follow it, we can conclude the following:

6. The vast majority of humans in existence will go to hell when they die. (from #5)

Now, a few deductions can be made:

7. When God created humans, he knew that the vast majority of humans would go to hell when they die. (from #1, #4, and #6)
8. It is fully within God's power to prevent humans from going to hell when they die. (from #3)

Thus, we can make the following conclusion:

9. God created humans with the full knowledge that they would go to hell when they died and did absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening. (from #7 and #8)

By any reasonable definition of the word "loving", one can say that an entity who created a living organism with the full knowledge that it would be destined to inevitably receive eternal suffering and torment is certainly not "loving", so we can finally conclude the following:

10. God is not all-loving. (from #9)

This is a direct contradiction with #2, so one of our assumptions must be wrong.  This means that one of the following must be true:

1. God does not know whether or not a human will go to hell upon dying (God is not all-knowing).
2. God does not care that he created something only to have it inevitably go to hell upon dying (God is not all-loving).
3. God cannot prevent humans from going to hell upon dying (God is not all-powerful).
4. God did not create humans or did not define their characteristics.
5. Humans who fail to satisfy a set of salvation requirements in life do not go to hell when they die.

If there's a problem in here, I'd certainly like to have it pointed out.

[Gabu]

Can we get that in plain English?  The quoted bits sound rather strange, but I'd rather be completely clear on what they're saying before commenting.  Specifically, Warfield and Helm's statements seem to be saying that it's necessary for God to send people to eternal suffering and torment in hell so that we can see his mercy and grace.  Personally, I don't see where the mercy and grace would be shown from such a thing; that sounds like blatant sadism and favoritism to me, certainly things that no one would expect from a god that is claimed to be perfect and infinitely just.  From temporary pain, the absence of it can be enjoyed, but eternal pain seems to serve no purpose whatsoever other than to cause the person to suffer forever.  And people who go to heaven certainly couldn't appreciate what they have due to God damning others to hell, as they would never have to experience for one moment what others are going through in hell.

Suppose a mother has two children.  She leaves bleach out by one of them and keeps the other away from it.  The infant by the bleach predictably drinks it and dies, while the other lives.  Is it an act of mercy and grace that she did not also subject the other to the same fate?  I think anyone would agree that that was a terrible act of negligence at best and deliberate infanticide at worst.  Yet then they turn around and lavish nothing but the highest praise and adoration on this God of theirs who supposedly does something extremely similar, with seemingly no reason for this massive discrepancy other than "he's God and by definition everything he does is right".  Well, sure, you can say, "Assume God is perfect and that he can do no wrong.  Then assume God does X, Y, and Z.  Therefore, X, Y, and Z are right."  This is logically sound, but utterly irrelevant when applied to reality unless the assumptions are actually true - a thought which no one seems willing to entertain for a moment except to say "well, they obviously are".

Sorry, but all those quotations sound like an extremely strained attempt to justify an apparently blatant contradiction by saying "well he's God so everything he does is right" without ever even bothering to question whether or not the Bible is, in fact, 100% the true word of God (or even bothering to question whether or not their interpretation of it is correct).  It all seems very intellectually lazy and seems to commit the terribly heinous logical crime of starting with a conclusion (that the Bible is true and that they've interpreted it correctly) and then looking for a logical justification.